Cross-border ADR

This Overview considers cross-border alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR provides a confidential dispute resolution mechanism outside of a court of law, by which a dispute or difference is submitted to an impartial individual(s), either for determination or to assist the parties in reaching a negotiated resolution of their dispute.

ADR is only one consideration when dealing with a cross border dispute. For an insight into the various considerations, see: Cross border considerations—checklist.

Tools

  1. understanding the different types of ADR—there are numerous alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms which may be of assistance, eg negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. For an understanding of the different forms and insight into how these differ from litigation, see Practice Note: What is ADR?

  2. guide to cross-border ADR—when dealing with cross border proceedings, such disputes are generally resolved by means of litigation of arbitration. However, it may be appropriate to consider the appropriateness of ADR mechanisms. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border ADR—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners

Arbitration

The

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents